Issues Underlying Whole Language Clarifying the Debate Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   January 01, 1994
Issues Underlying Whole Language
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jan Norris
    Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
Article Information
Development / Normal Language Processing / Attention, Memory & Executive Functions / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   January 01, 1994
Issues Underlying Whole Language
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, January 1994, Vol. 25, 40-44. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2501.40
History: Received June 14, 1993 , Accepted August 5, 1993
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, January 1994, Vol. 25, 40-44. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2501.40
History: Received June 14, 1993; Accepted August 5, 1993
Open discussion of philosophical and applied issues is important to the process of developing the most explanatory theory of language and language learning and for translating theory into effective practice. Discussion of conflicting theories can help clarify questions that need to be accounted for by a complete theory and provide insights that can direct attention toward a new way of viewing a problem that integrates apparently contradictory data. Legitimate criticism motivates a researcher to account for unexplained data and to refine theory, thus advancing knowledge in the field. However, when the philosophies and conclusions of a theorist or researcher are criticized, the critic is obligated to accurately represent the work of that individual. Unfortunately, many of the statements made in Debatable Issues Underlying Whole-Language Philosophy: A Speech-Language Pathologist’s Perspective (Shapiro, 1992) reflect misrepresentations of the work of the whole-language theorists cited.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access